Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 580–589 | Cite as

Analysis of the Effect of Early Versus Conventional Nasogastric Tube Removal on Postoperative Complications After Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Masato Hayashi
  • Hirofumi Kawakubo
  • Yoshiaki Shoji
  • Syuhei Mayanagi
  • Rieko Nakamura
  • Koichi Suda
  • Norihito Wada
  • Hiroya Takeuchi
  • Yuko Kitagawa
Original Scientific Report (including Papers Presented at Surgical Conferences)

Abstract

Background

Although esophagectomy is the only curative option for esophageal cancer, the associated invasiveness is high. Nasogastric (NG) tube use may prevent complications; however, its utility remains unclear, and the decompression period depends on the doctor. This study aimed to reveal the effect of conventional versus early NG tube removal on postoperative complications after esophagectomy.

Methods

This single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled patients aged 20–80 years with histologically proven primary esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eighty patients admitted for transthoracic first-stage esophagectomy reconstructed with gastric conduit were randomly assigned (1:1) to the conventional and early NG tube removal groups. In the conventional NG tube removal group, the tube was removed on postoperative day (POD) 7; in the other, it was removed on POD 1. The occurrence rate of major complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, and NG tube reinsertion rate were compared between the groups.

Results

The incidence of postoperative major complications such as pneumonia, anastomotic leakage, recurrent nerve palsy and gastrointestinal bleeding, and the NG tube reinsertion rate was not different between the groups. However, recurrent nerve palsy was more commonly observed in the conventional removal group; this difference was not significant. In terms of postoperative pneumonia, tumor location and field of lymph node dissection were significant risk factors.

Conclusion

Although early NG tube removal did not reduce the rate of postoperative pneumonia, it could be performed safely. Hence, the NG tube can be removed earlier than conventional methods.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kumiko Motooka, who belongs to the staff at the Department of Surgery in Keio University School of Medicine, for her help in the preparation of this report.

Funding

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin SM, Shaw IH, Dresner SM (2002) Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management. J Am Coll Surg 194:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ando N, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y, Shinozawa Y, Kitajima M (2000) Improvement in the results of surgical treatment of advanced squamous esophageal carcinoma during 15 consecutive years. Ann Surg 232:225–232CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC, Alexandrou A, Wong J (2001) Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg 233:338–344CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sato T, Takayama T, So K, Murayama I (2007) Is retention of a nasogastric tube after esophagectomy a risk factor for postoperative respiratory tract infection? J Infect Chemother 13:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen NT, Slone J, Wooldridge J, Smith BR, Reavis KM, Hoyt D (2009) Minimally invasive esophagectomy without the use of postoperative nasogastric tube decompression. Am Surg 75:929–931Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daryaei P, Vaghef Davari F, Mir M, Harirchi I, Salmasian H (2009) Omission of nasogastric tube application in postoperative care of esophagectomy. World J Surg 33:773–777.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-9930-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shackcloth MJ, McCarron E, Kendall J, Russell GN, Pennefather SH, Tran J, Page RD (2006) Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 93:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mistry RC, Vijayabhaskar R, Karimundackal G, Jiwnani S, Pramesh CS (2012) Effect of short-term vs prolonged nasogastric decompression on major postesophagectomy complications: a parallel-group, randomized trial. Arch Surg 147:747–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaburagi T, Takeuchi H, Kawakubo H, Omori T, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y (2014) Clinical utility of a novel hybrid position combining the left lateral decubitus and prone positions during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. World J Surg 38:410–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2258-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K et al (2016) Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan clinical oncology group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 46:668–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee JH, Hyung WJ, Noh SH (2002) Comparison of gastric cancer surgery with versus without nasogastric decompression. Yonsei Med J 43:451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao W, Zhang X, Zhang J, Yan R, Hu Z, Wang Q (2011) The role of nasogastric tube in decompression after elective colon and rectum surgery: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B (2007) Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD004929Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weijs TJ, Kumagai K, Berkelmans GH, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Nilsson M, Luyer MD (2017) Nasogastric decompression following esophagectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 30:1–8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ichida H, Imamura H, Yoshimoto J, Sugo H, Ishizaki Y, Kawasaki S (2016) Randomized controlled trial for evaluation of the routine use of nasogastric tube decompression after elective liver surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1324–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiozaki A, Fujiwara H, Okamura H et al (2012) Risk factors for postoperative respiratory complications following esophageal cancer resection. Oncol Lett 3:907–912PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S et al (2017) Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1821–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masato Hayashi
    • 1
  • Hirofumi Kawakubo
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Shoji
    • 2
  • Syuhei Mayanagi
    • 1
  • Rieko Nakamura
    • 1
  • Koichi Suda
    • 1
  • Norihito Wada
    • 1
  • Hiroya Takeuchi
    • 3
  • Yuko Kitagawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, School of MedicineKeio UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryCancer Institute HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, School of MedicineHamamatsu UniversityHamamatsu-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations